[PREV - THE_AUTUMNAL_WEB] [TOP]
December 10, 2006
"The most persuasive piece of rhetoric yet
unleashed in this conflict has been the
daisy cutter bomb. It's the only argument
that much of this clearly depraved culture This from the
actually respects." man who declared
Robert Fisk "racist".
-- Andrew Sullivan, December 13, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20040416224040/http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2001_12_09_dish_archive.html#7912572
But why would you expect a bomb
to work any better than the 9/11 Ah, I think
attack did on the United States? I've got it.
Did that put the United They had in mind
States in a concillatory cases where
frame of mind? bombing had "worked"
(by some definition
of "worked").
E.g. Kosovo.
This brings to mind
some remarks by Freeman
Dyson on the difference in
So it's a matter perception of the
of "fighting the effectiveness of bombing
last war" again. brought about by the
different experiences
that England and
Rather than, say, the United States
trying to study had with it during
the problem, and World War II: arguably
determine under it "worked" in the
what circumstances Pacific theater and
an opponent is was nearly useless
likely to give-in in the European.
after being subjected
to bombardment.
And if you do
attempt to do
a study like
that, would
there be any
way to proceed
without trying UNDERSTAND_JUSTICE
to understand
your enemy?
My hypothesis:
It is not the force
of the explosions
that brings about
surrender, but the
absence of a sense
of moral force.
The side that knows in
their hearts that their
cause is not just is
the side that will lose.
Which is why "realpolitk"
is not realistic.
MORAL_VALUED
Morality matters.
--------
[NEXT - TAILSPIN]